Hyde Housing Association Limited (202345698)

Background

1. The resident reported a broken shower in January 2024. She said the landlord’s initial repair was not effective, and it did not fully complete the repair until May 2024. The resident told the landlord about health needs and how not having a shower would affect her household.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Shower repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of shower repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. We found:
   1. The landlord did not repair the shower within the timeframes in its repair policy. It did not complete an effective repair and left the resident with damaged property. It did not raise follow-on work in a timely way and did not communicate effectively with the resident.
   2. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint when she asked it to. She waited 41 working days for a final complaint response, which added to delays with the repair. The landlord did not complete the actions it committed to in its complaint response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

5. The resident said her daughter had been injured by the broken bath panel and scalded after the shower caught fire. It would be fairer and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim if she wishes to pursue this. The courts deal with personal injury claims because they can rely on independent medical advice to decide on the cause and duration of injury. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. We did not investigate this further.
6. The resident reported another issue with her shower on 14 July 2024. This was 3 months after the landlord had sent its stage 2 response, and 2 months after it had completed the initial repair. We cannot determine whether there is any link between the earlier issues and this later fault. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident would need to raise a new complaint with the landlord about the July 2024 fault to give it a fair opportunity to respond.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s responsive repairs operational procedure says it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe and complete works within 24 hours. It classifies emergency repairs as those needed to sustain the immediate health, safety, or security of the resident. It says it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to showers it has installed, and for electric wiring.
8. The resident reported the shower repair on 11 January 2024. The landlord scheduled a routine repair for 26 January 2024 between 1:00pm and 5:00pm. The resident took time off work to provide access. The landlord cancelled at around 12:00pm due to staff sickness and rearranged the appointment for the 14 February 2024. This would have been outside of the 20-working day timeframe in the landlord’s policy. While staff absence can be unavoidable, it would have been good practice for the landlord to inform the resident as early as possible. Had it done so, it may have saved the resident time and trouble and allowed the landlord to rearrange the appointment within its repair timescales.
9. On 2 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say she had taken another day off work to provide access. This shows the landlord had rescheduled the appointment to meet its timeframes. She said the operative attended briefly and advised her that the shower needed replacing. While landlords cannot always complete repairs on the first visit, the resident had already waited 16 working days for this appointment. She then waited a further 13 working days for the landlord to return on 20 February 2024 to complete the repair. In total, she waited 29 working days, which exceeded the landlord’s published response times.
10. On 14 February 2024 the landlord cancelled the shower appointment for that date due to staff sickness. However, it attended to inspect the damp, mould, and the front door, reporting that the resident was not at home. There is no evidence it had scheduled this with the resident, only advising her of the appointment on 20 February 2024 and the cancelled visit. This is a communication failure and likely caused distress and inconvenience for the resident along with a missed opportunity for her to show her concerns to the operative.
11. Following the inspection on 14 February 2024 the landlord identified further work but did not raise the follow-on repairs in a timely way. It did not complete the repairs in the time it said it would or monitor the actions it had agreed in its complaint response. This caused the resident more avoidable time and trouble chasing for information. The landlord’s record keeping also caused further issues when the resident contacted it, as it was unable to identify when it had attended and what the outcomes were.
12. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 February 2024. It apologised for the delays and offered the resident £100 compensation. It confirmed it had scheduled the shower repair for 20 February 2024. It also said it would inspect her reports about the front door and the damp and mould, although these did not form part of her complaint. It did not acknowledge that an appointment to assess the door, damp, and mould had already taken place. While this indicates a record keeping failure, its offer was consistent with its complaint procedure for a low‑impact failure.
13. The resident responded the same day explaining the impact the lack of a working shower was having on her health and daily routines. She said baths were unsuitable for her medical needs and were expensive. Although the resident had access to other washing facilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to record and respond to the new information and consider whether any further support or adjustments were appropriate. The landlord’s policy also allows discretion to reimburse for increased utility costs. Its failure to consider this or acknowledge what the resident had said caused further dissatisfaction.
14. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times on 20 February 2024 after it had fitted the shower replacement. She provided photos showing a part was missing allowing water to enter the unit and said wires were exposed. She also reported the operative had damaged her bath panel, leaving a hole with sharp edges which had injured her child. The landlord did not log any follow-up work until 2 April 2024 and recorded it as a routine repair, giving a further 20 working day target. Given the report of exposed wiring and the presence of 2 young children in the home, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat this as an emergency repair.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to attend to complete the shower repair on 1 May 2024 and apologised for its previous poor communication. However, it failed to attend on that date, and the resident had to make several more attempts to contact about the repair. As it had committed to this in a complaint response, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to maintain communication with the resident, check the appointment went ahead and that she was satisfied.
16. The landlord attended on 9 May 2024 to repair the shower but needed to order a new bath panel, which it returned to fit on 18 May 2024. This meant the landlord took 90 working days to fully resolve the repair after receiving the first report. This was not in line with the landlord’s procedure, and the landlord did not demonstrate any learning regarding its communication.
17. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. It recognised some failings during the complaint process and apologised and its offer of £200 addressed some of the impact. However, it did not complete a lasting repair within a reasonable time, and the resident spent considerable time and trouble chasing progress during and after the complaint process.
18. Furthermore, the landlord did not show it considered the resident’s individual needs when she informed it how the lack of a shower affected her. It did not direct her to its insurance company with regards to the injuries she reported. We have ordered the landlord to pay a total of £400 for its repair handling failures, inclusive of the £200 it has already offered. This is consistent with our compensation guidance to put right maladministration where there is no permanent impact on the resident.

19. The landlord’s complaints procedure at the time set targets to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response 10 working days later. This was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2022. Its target of 20 working days for stage 2 responses was in line with the Code. It said it may not investigate issues that occurred more than 6 months before the complaint, but it may use discretion if there is evidence of a long-standing problem.
20. The resident made her complaint on 26 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 31 January 2024 and issued its stage 1 response within the extended timeframe it had agreed with the resident.
21. The landlord did not accept the resident’s reports about damp and mould and the front door as part of the complaint because she had not raised them within the previous 12 months. It made commitments within its complaint response to address these issues outside of the complaint by arranging inspections. This was reasonable and showed the landlord was listening and acting on information provided.
22. However, it did not monitor these actions and as a result, did not raise or complete the work it had identified. This caused the resident additional time and trouble contacting the landlord for updates.
23. The resident contacted the landlord several times between 20 February 2024 and 22 March 2024 to escalate her complaint. The landlord did not respond or escalate the complaint in line with its procedure or the Code. This caused avoidable delay and led the resident to contact us for help, causing her further time and trouble. The landlord missed further opportunities to act on the resident’s reports or put things right.
24. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 April 2024, 41 working days after the resident requested escalation. This was not consistent with the Code. The landlord’s offer of £50 for the delay was not proportionate given the number of times the resident sought updates and the continued delays to outstanding works.
25. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint and complete the actions it had promised undermined the resident’s trust in the process and prolonged the resolution of the issues. Therefore, we find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and have ordered it to pay £150 compensation, inclusive of the £50 already offered. This is consistent with our compensation guidance where complaint-handling failures have had a significant effect on a resident, and delays have affected the resolution of the issue.

Learning

26. In this case, better planning or triaging of repairs could have reduced repeat appointments and avoided delays.

Record keeping

27. The resident said the landlord’s record-keeping caused issues when she phoned for updates. Accurate record keeping is essential to show required or completed actions and resident contact. The landlord may wish to refer to our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

28. There were occasions when the resident expected a visit on one date, but operatives arrived on another. The landlord also did not inform the resident about cancellations in a timely way. Clear communication helps residents prepare, reduces missed appointments, and maintains trust. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance also explains that landlord can avoid failures with clearer communication and monitoring of repairs.